Is it Possible to Assess the Two-Domain Definition of the Broad Autism Phenotype Using the Available Measurement Tools?

Abstract

Although, the operationalization of the autism spectrum disorder has been updated around two domains, the broad autism phenotype (BAP) one has not. Additionally, the items of the three common BAP measures, the Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire (BAPQ), the Autism Quotient, and the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), remain organized around a non-consensual number of factors. We explored whether the items of these measures matched with the two-domain operationalization through a parallel analysis, which has suggested two main components, and two expert judgments which have assessed item wording, relevance, and construct representativeness. A remaining pool of 48 BAP-relevant items suggested a possible under-representation of two subdomains. Despite the relevance of all the BAPQ items, only the SRS ones tapped in all subdomains.

Applying a Rasch model to the Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire: item severity analysis and differential test functioning of the English and Spanish versions

“…Nevertheless, this study, in conjunction with others, has provided adverse evidence about the internal structure of the BAPQ (e.g., Godoy-Giménez et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2021;Sasson et al, 2013a;Sharma and Bhushan, 2018;Stojković et al, 2018). These findings could be better understood considering the most updated BAP operationalization (Godoy-Giménez et al, 2021;Morrison et al, 2018;Sasson et al, 2013b) and suggest that a new BAP test based on an updated BAP definition (as the middle expression of the current two-dimensions operationalization of the ASD; APA, 2013; see Godoy-Giménez et al, 2021) should be built. The new test would aim to measure BAP covering all autism subthreshold levels of expression including those in the general population.…”

“…Particularly, Pragmatic Language adverse evidence was reported in Godoy-Giménez et al (2018), Sasson et al (2013a), and Sharma and Bhushan (2018); Rigid adverse evidence was reported in Lin et al (2021), and adverse evidence of both subscales in Stojković et al (2018). These findings could be better understood under the light of the most updated BAP operationalization (Godoy-Giménez et al, 2021) which revolves around two core domains paralleling it with the last ASD definition (APA, 2013) and includes some variations in the test content. Regarding item fit, in the BAPQ-EN, we consider that the item in the Aloof subscale (Item 18) that exhibited little misfit could be explained by a lack of concreteness in the item content (any person rating high or low in BAP could agree with it because being polite is independent of the preference for social interactions), yet this slight item misfit could not degrade the measure (Linacre, 2018).…”